Tag Archives: 14th Amendment

“The Riddle of Race-Based Redistricting”

New scholarship by Travis Crum forthcoming in the Columbia Law Review—abstract below.  Congrats on a great placement Travis!

In the redistricting context, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause in diametrically opposite ways, subjecting mapmakers to competing hazards of liability. Vote dilution doctrine requires mapmakers to consider race to ensure that racial minorities are not packed or cracked into districts. Congress, moreover, has endorsed and expanded vote dilution doctrine in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. By contrast, racial gerrymandering doctrine triggers strict scrutiny if mapmakers subordinate traditional redistricting principles to race. Thus, racial gerrymandering claims threaten Section 2’s constitutionality.

To resolve this doctrinal riddle, this Essay examines whether, as originally understood, the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments governed the use of race during redistricting. Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment was understood to exclude political rights. By contrast, the Fifteenth Amendment enfranchised Black men nationwide. The Reconstruction Framers argued over whether it also protected the right to hold office, but they barely referenced redistricting while debating the Fifteenth Amendment.

This Essay then turns to post-ratification evidence to ascertain original understanding. It begins by examining the Reconstruction Congress’s enforcement acts, none of which directly addressed the use of race during redistricting. This Essay also excavates redistricting plans enacted by Southern States during the 1870 and 1880 redistricting cycles, finding that Republican States sought to empower Black voters, whereas Democratic States packed and cracked Black voters.

This Essay argues that, from an originalist perspective, vote dilution and racial gerrymandering claims are improperly grounded in the Equal Protection Clause. This Essay further contends that, under the Fifteenth Amendment, there is some historical evidence in favor of vote dilution claims but virtually no historical support for racial gerrymandering claims. The upshot is that Congress could enact Section 2 pursuant to its Fifteenth Amendment enforcement authority to protect the right to vote and hold office.

Share this:

“Colorado Supreme Court justices face a flood of threats after disqualifying Trump from the ballot”

NBC News:

In the 24 hours since the Colorado Supreme Court kicked former President Donald Trump off the state’s Republican primary ballot, social media outlets have been flooded with threats against the justices who ruled in the case, according to a report obtained by NBC News.

Advance Democracy, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that conducts public interest research, identified “significant violent rhetoric” against the justices and Democrats, often in direct response to Trump’s posts about the ruling on his platform Truth Social. They found that some social media users posted justices’ email addresses, phone numbers and office building addresses.

Share this:

Roundup: Colorado Supreme Court’s Disqualification of Trump from 2024 Primary Ballot

Select Coverage: WSJ & WaPo

Analysis/Opinion: Aaron Blake, David Frum, Democratic & Republican lawmakers (The Hill & Time Magazine), Maggie Haberman, Rick Hasen, Maya King, Harry Litman, Derek Muller, Hans von Spakovsky, Jesse Wegman

Colorado Supreme Court Opinion

U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Share this:

“Lawsuit to block Trump from Colorado 2024 ballot survives more legal challenges”

CNN: Colorado judge presiding over the trial rejected on Friday three more attempts by former President Donald Trump and the Colorado GOP to dismiss the lawsuit seeking to block him from appearing as a presidential candidate in Colorado in 2024.

“‘If the Party, without any oversight, can choose its preferred candidate, then it could theoretically nominate anyone regardless of their age, citizenship, residency,’ she wrote. ‘Such an interpretation is absurd; the Constitution and its requirements for eligibility are not suggestions, left to the political parties to determine at their sole discretion.’

Wallace also cited a 2012 opinion from Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, when he was a Denver-based appeals judge, which said states have the power to ‘exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.'”

Share this: